Table 4. Comparison of 1p/19q status obtained by Algorithm 1 and 2 according to the counting method.
| Algorithm 1 | Algorithm 2 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Combination | Ratio | C+R | Combination | Ratio | C+R | |||||||
| Man. | Aut. | Man. | Aut. | Man. | Aut. | Man. | Aut. | Man. | Aut. | Man. | Aut. | |
| Codeletion | 19 | 16 | 19 | 18 | 20 | 20 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 17 | 19 | 19 |
| Deletion 1p | 2 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 2 |
| Deletion 19q | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Normal | 11 | 7 | 19 | 18 | 11 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 15 | 4 | 5 |
| Co-imbalance | 7 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 10 |
| Imbalance 1p | 8 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Imbalance 19q | 3 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 |
C: combination, R: ratio. Algorithm 1 was studied on the retrospective series, Algorithm 2 was studied on the prospective series.